Patel Bharatkumar Naranbhai Vs. Gujarat Steel Tubes Limited - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- - it is also recorded that the respondent failed to prove any error or lapse in the finding of the i.k.m. thaker, j.1. in this petition, an award dated february 6, 2007 is brought under challenge. by the said award, the learned labour court, ahmedabad has rejected the reference (lca) no. 2130/1992.2. this petition appears to have been filed on or around april 3, 2008 and since then, the petition has been adjourned from time to time either on the ground of leave note or sick note of the learned advocate for the petitioner. today also, when the matter is called out, learned advocate for the petitioner is not present. hence, the matter is taken up for hearing in absence of the petitioner's advocate.3. in the impugned award, the learned labour court has recorded that the company against which the reference proceedings were preferred has been closed down.4. the petitioner approached the learned labour court with a grievance that he was put under suspension w.e.f. june 29, 1991 pending inquiry and the inquiry was concluded on may 9, 1992 and thereafter, his service was terminated.5. aggrieved by the said termination, the petitioner approached the learned labour court and claimed wages for the period from june 29, 1991 (i.e. the date of order of suspension) to june 26,1992 and also prayed for reinstatement with consequential benefits. the respondent herein filed their reply bringing on record the details about the departmental inquiry, misconduct of the workman and the circumstances due to which his service was terminated. the learned labour court has recorded that the petitioner had admitted the legality and propriety of the departmental inquiry. subsequently, since the company went into liquidation after its closure, application for bringing official liquidator on record was preferred and the same was granted. the learned labour court has recorded that the workman only challenged the findings of the inquiry officer and not the legality of the inquiry. the learned labour court has, after considering the submissions of the petitioner, rejected the reference by taking into account the fact that the company has gone into liquidation and the workman was not able to establish that the findings of the inquiry officer (hereinafter referred to as 'the i.o.' for short) were in any manner, incorrect or without evidence.6. at this stage, mr. medipally has appeared and i have heard him. except submitting that the order may be set aside, he has not made any other submission.7. on perusal of the order, there appears to be no error in the award. the findings recorded by the learned labour court are neither arbitrary nor perverse. the court has also noticed that the company is in liquidation. it is also recorded that the respondent failed to prove any error or lapse in the finding of the i.o. there is nothing on record to convince that the said conclusion is incorrect. when the legality of the inquiry is not challenged and when findings are not shown to be incorrect or baseless, then no fault can be found in the impugned order since the court could not have interfered with decision of penalty. no case for interference is made out. hence, present petition is rejected.